From user-return-22052-apmail-couchdb-user-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Sun Sep 9 16:51:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C578FD100 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 16:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49948 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2012 16:51:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 49842 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2012 16:51:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 49821 invoked by uid 99); 9 Sep 2012 16:51:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:51:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=FSL_RCVD_USER,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.216.180] (HELO mail-qc0-f180.google.com) (209.85.216.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:51:01 +0000 Received: by qcmv28 with SMTP id v28so632473qcm.11 for ; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 09:50:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=m5tYKCyR8bAYkq02xJjtNKXe4dcCLHu+qTRmuwY3mcI=; b=idR6LGuZsnxrEMKzspwdoYh1l11rF+AJdNLkFj5aLL7lzqYpMaWc4cKBlLFUrUq63z f8TltvFojJINyOtJMLyUDymhUDFQZ2GHtZg8R/CZqk5ZtlEuDEZV3gyrsNXkFRUnhByn ixrKq8idyuRhAuUqVY71Djg13yd4ALb0TSQC9oK1tX7dCpxveszV+NeszDvcyjE4pPsU nXfeMUR9VWNhXF/49DloagZUWr5KmtNyNXQ/GGIrFa9rVDwgffSfZMMsk09vnJoOUsMZ 7nxXa/FMgCpUjynws49iBYj6+bW+Na687dFHjh6u6HMy+2HfZQXBjaUgaSsRxQvFbsej v5ew== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.179.7 with SMTP id bo7mr9854364qab.96.1347209440453; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 09:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.86.74 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 09:50:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [84.112.19.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:50:40 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Allowing access only to authenticated users From: Dave Cottlehuber To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlFGWHFxOlc+PD6Jc0fGF4HNWPh5Yuht5iNClXHYpMDYzTwKOtSqSPl8x3HZ5l6sDuYcvYY On 9 September 2012 13:13, Wordit wrote: > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote: >> >> What you likely want is this, and then to control signups as needed? >> >> [couch_httpd_auth] >> require_valid_user = true > > Isn't [couch_httpd_auth] a couch-wide setting? It needs to be per > database. Otherwise, there's no public access at all, which would > greatly diminish the usefulness/uniqueness of using couchdb. Yes. > Would it go against CouchDB design philosophy to have a _user role > pre-defined, and tied to the _users database? If not, I think it would > make sense and be useful to many developers. Where is the place to > suggest and discuss this as a feature? Here's good, but you can also move it to dev@ if you like. My question is - what does this role actually do for you? All authenticated users will have a UsrCtx available in ddocs, so the mere fact it exists implies they're in users. Where else might you want a specific, separate role? Am I missing something? A+ Dave